Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

No because she has a richness of heritage and diversity that provides her magical wisdom unencumbered by silly legal reasoning.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

I have stated just as much. The irony is, of course, that those who advocate for state rights have forgone such sentiments with respect to Sotomyors ruling in Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch because it does not suite their current desire to justify her deficiency as a Supreme Court candidate.

In times of war one must be willing to use the ammunition of the enemy and fire at will!

[FRPLG]

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?

The crust of her argument was that people should be able to sue under state law. She (they really) also asked the Supreme Court for clarification. You can find the legal grounds for the opinion here.

Dabit filed a "breach of fiduciary duty" claim under Oklahoma state law in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under "diversity grounds" because the parties in the case were from different states. His complaint was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York where more than 120 additional cases against Merrill Lynch were consolidated.

In the suit, Dabit claimed that Merrill Lynch's practices caused certain stocks to trade at "artificially inflated" prices through the use of deceptive devices alleged to be the "hallmarks of stock manipulation."


Section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person to use deceptive or manipulative devices "in the connection or sale of any security." Because of a perceived flood of frivolous lawsuits regarding security fraud through state courts, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) in 1998, which provides that people must file suits charging securities fraud in federal court where there are stringent, uniform standards.


SLUSA states that any class action lawsuit based on state or local law alleging fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" or of a stock must be governed by federal law.


...


Judge Sonia Sotomayor [in agreement with her colleagues], wrote that SLUSA should be interpreted very narrowly to apply to only purchasers and sellers.


"We see no clear indication either in the text or the legislative history of SLUSA of a congressional intent to abolish nonpurchaser and nonseller state class action claims," wrote Sotomayer.


Sotomayer seemed to ask for definition of the "in connection with" phrase from the U.S. Supreme Court, writing that the high court has "not yet interpreted this phrase in the context of SLUSA."

[firstdown]

My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.

She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.

Well da, and the left bitched about those. Doesn't mean I have to like it. You were suppose to ask me how I knew she was a liberal.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.

I heard she has had 5 or 6 cases go to the SC and either 2 or 3 over turned and one is still pending.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.

I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.

I know for a fact that she is liberal because she has messy hair.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I know for a fact that she is liberal because she has messy hair.

You know on second thought, I think the Prez should rescind his offer.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.

The Senate must perform it's advise and consent duty. After all we don't live in a dictatorship. Just ask Robert Bork.

My only hope for this nomination process is that it might dawn on somebody that an organization called "The National Council of The Race", might have some views that are at odds with American values. But then I'm probably hoping beyond hope.